diamond1, comiskey, bilski, rice, gutta, exxon research, miller,

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/19/2011 1627 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/724,095 WALSH 103(a) Kevin D. Erickson Pauley Petersen & Erickson EXAMINER SOROUSH, LAYLA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/20/2011 3623 Ex Parte TEMPLETON 09/416,278 PETRAVICK 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101 PETERS VERNY , L.L.P. EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V

See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (S. Ct. 1981); In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (declining to reach an obviousness rejection on appeal after concluding many claims were non-statutory under § 101); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 951 n.1 (noting that § 101 is a threshold requirement and that the Examiner may reject claims solely on that basis); In re Rice, 132 F.2d 140, 141 (CCPA 1942) (finding it unnecessary to reach rejection based on prior art after concluding claims were directed to nonstatutory subject matter); Ex Parte Gutta, 93 USPQ2d 1025, 1036 (BPAI 2009) (per curiam) (expanded panel) (precedential) (as the claims on appeal do not recite patent-eligible subject matter under § 101, the prior art rejections need not be considered).

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01

07/19/2011 3624 Ex Parte Troyer et al 10/652,139 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. EXAMINER MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products &1amp; Design
07/19/2011 3764 Ex Parte Carvalho et al 10/040,575 CALVE 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/19/2011 2172 Ex Parte Beltran et al 10/781,307 DANG 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER ABDUL-ALI, OMAR R

07/19/2011 2174 Ex Parte Law et al 10/830,926 DANG 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER KE, PENG

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/20/2011 3652 Ex Parte Gifford et al 10/908,594 COCKS 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DELIO & PETERSON, LLC. EXAMINER RUDAWITZ, JOSHUA I

A claim is not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed.Cir. 2001). Breadth in scope does not equal indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971).

Miller, In re, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.04

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/20/2011 1643 Ex Parte King et al 10/731,759 MILLS 103(a) COZEN O'CONNOR, P.C. EXAMINER SANG, HONG

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/20/2011 1782 Ex Parte Schryver 10/778,366 FRANKLIN 103(a) MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC EXAMINER AUGHENBAUGH, WALTER

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/20/2011 2168 Ex Parte Needham et al 10/880,301 CHEN 102(e) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER GORTAYO, DANGELINO N

2600 Communications
07/19/2011 2624 Ex Parte Baker et al 10/744,879 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER TUCKER, WESLEY J

ferguson2, gutta, oelrich, steele, wilson,

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Malkin 10/437,078 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) CHRISTENSEN, O'CONNOR, JOHNSON, KINDNESS, PLLC EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Andrzejak et al 10/418,075 MARTIN 101/102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CASANOVA, JORGE A 

Although it is possible for claimed subject matter to be patent-ineligible even though it fits within one or more statutory categories under § 101, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009), Ex parte Gutta, 93 USPQ2d 1025, 1034 (BPAI 2009) (precedential), the Examiner has not demonstrated that claims 34-40 recite patent-ineligible subject matter. In Gutta, for example, the Board held that a claim which recites a “machine” or an “article of manufacture” under § 101 nevertheless will be deemed to recite patent-ineligible subject matter under § 101 if the claim “involves a mathematical algorithm” and if the answer to either of the following two questions is “no”:

(1) Is the claim limited to a tangible practical application, in which the mathematical algorithm is applied, that results in a real-world use (e.g., “not a mere field-of-use label having no significance”)?

(2) Is the claim limited so as to not encompass substantially all practical applications of the mathematical algorithm either “in all fields” of use of the algorithm or even in “only one field?”

Gutta, 93 USPQ2d at 1031 (footnotes omitted). Because the Examiner has not established that claims 34-40 recite patent-ineligible subject matter even though they recite a machine, we will not sustain the § 101 rejection of any of these claims. 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Malkin 11/220,672 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER KOLB, NATHANIEL J 

An inherent characteristic must be inevitable, and not merely a possibility or probability. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). 

Oelrich, In re, 666 F.2d 578, 212 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Knauseder 11/229,178 FRANKLIN 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER STEPHEN, EMEM O 

Ex Parte Penny et al 10/411,056 CRAWFORD 103(a) JACK J SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER SEREBOFF, NEAL 

Ex Parte Wahlbin et al 09/969,017 CRAWFORD 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CONLEY, ROSE & TAYON, P.C. EXAMINER RINES, ROBERT D 

Where claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, a § 103 rejection of the claims must be reversed as impermissibly involving speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63 (CCPA 1962). If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, “the subject matter does not become obvious - the claim becomes indefinite.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). 

Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06 

Wilson, In re, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494, (CCPA 1970).. . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Chang et al 11/083,261 McCOLLUM 103(a) ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER FAY, ZOHREH A 

"[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). "Only if the ‘results of optimizing a variable’ are ‘unexpectedly good’ can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)). "[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art." In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

Aller, In re, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.05 

Geisler, In re, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.05, 2145 

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . .2131.01, 2145 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Rice et al 10/988,168 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) DUGAN & DUGAN, PC EXAMINER BIDWELL, JAMES R 

REEXAMINATION AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex Parte 5283862 et al 90/008,240 TORCZON 112(2)/112(6)/103(a) GILBRETH & ASSOCS., for the patentee AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN, LLP, for the requester EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J